5 ms·

Discovery recently deleted any already purchased shows and series on PlayStation without a refund. It is not immoral to download content illegally when the alt

Discovery recently deleted any already purchased shows and series on PlayStation without a refund. It is not immoral to download content illegally when the alternative is a revocable digital token being sold fraudulently.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Except that is not the alternative, is it? Couldn’t you just not watch the show?
- wolfendin 3y ago
  But I paid to be able to watch the show. Sony made a deliberate action to deprive me of that ability, should I not be made whole?
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Maybe, but that’s not for you to arbitrarily decide on your own.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      So, instead of "arbitrarily" deciding that on their own... how should they decide that "properly"? By officially asking for new Terms of Service maybe?
      - itsboring 3y ago
        Probably a multi-year class action suit where everyone who got screwed over eventually gets $0.79 for their troubles while lawyers on both sides get a fat payday for creating exactly nothing. That’s what this precious “social contract” gets you, and I piss on it.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Law suit, but generally arbitration of some kind (the conceptual kind, not the legal term). Part of the social contract is that we don't resolve our own disputes beyond a certain level of seriousness, we allow neutral third parties to do so. Otherwise we'd have fights in the streets and mob justice.
        justinclift 3y ago
        > we allow neutral third parties to do so. That hasn't been working out so well lately, thus the whole "alternative methods" thing being pretty popular in some circles these days.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        It works a hell of a lot better than "alternative methods" from a moral standpoint, however. The reality is that people have just become more okay hurting others.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Nah. Violence is the underlying motivation behind a lot of the world. Whether implied from people not following "the process" (your social contract), or people working around process that aren't working for them (corruption, etc). There's no better moral standpoint in either, it's always a case by case basis.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So to be clear, your argument in favor of vigilantism being moral (which you call violence despite it not being so) is that it's effective?
        justinclift 3y ago
        Heh Heh Heh Perhaps you need to re-read things a bit? :)
    - skeaker 3y ago
      Why are companies allowed to arbitrarily break the contract by removing something you paid for, but you aren't?
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    I think they mean, you could have neither bought nor pirated the content, knowing that the terms Discovery is offering are very one-sided (I am presuimg the license agreement explicitly stipulated that they were allowed to do what they did). Either way, when one party breaks their contract, you sue them in a court of law. You don't seek remedies on your own.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Except that is not the alternative, is it? Couldn’t you just not watch the show?

wolfendin 3y ago
But I paid to be able to watch the show. Sony made a deliberate action to deprive me of that ability, should I not be made whole?
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Maybe, but that’s not for you to arbitrarily decide on your own.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    So, instead of "arbitrarily" deciding that on their own... how should they decide that "properly"? By officially asking for new Terms of Service maybe?
    - itsboring 3y ago
      Probably a multi-year class action suit where everyone who got screwed over eventually gets $0.79 for their troubles while lawyers on both sides get a fat payday for creating exactly nothing. That’s what this precious “social contract” gets you, and I piss on it.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Law suit, but generally arbitration of some kind (the conceptual kind, not the legal term). Part of the social contract is that we don't resolve our own disputes beyond a certain level of seriousness, we allow neutral third parties to do so. Otherwise we'd have fights in the streets and mob justice.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        > we allow neutral third parties to do so. That hasn't been working out so well lately, thus the whole "alternative methods" thing being pretty popular in some circles these days.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        It works a hell of a lot better than "alternative methods" from a moral standpoint, however. The reality is that people have just become more okay hurting others.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Nah. Violence is the underlying motivation behind a lot of the world. Whether implied from people not following "the process" (your social contract), or people working around process that aren't working for them (corruption, etc). There's no better moral standpoint in either, it's always a case by case basis.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So to be clear, your argument in favor of vigilantism being moral (which you call violence despite it not being so) is that it's effective?
        justinclift 3y ago
        Heh Heh Heh Perhaps you need to re-read things a bit? :)
  - skeaker 3y ago
    Why are companies allowed to arbitrarily break the contract by removing something you paid for, but you aren't?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  I think they mean, you could have neither bought nor pirated the content, knowing that the terms Discovery is offering are very one-sided (I am presuimg the license agreement explicitly stipulated that they were allowed to do what they did). Either way, when one party breaks their contract, you sue them in a court of law. You don't seek remedies on your own.